About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
MSNBCW 9
CNNW 5
KNTV (NBC) 2
CNBC 1
CSPAN 1
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
by using the normal criminal procedures. >> because lindsey graham and others say, yes, he should be tried as a u.s. citizen, should be tried in a u.s. civilian court, but that can await this process of doing some serious interrogation of him and designating him as an enemy combatant in the meantime. all of this is moot right now, because as you know, yesterday, he was formally given his miranda rights and a judge magistrate at his bed side with a court-appointed attorney, a public defender. this is moot as the obama administration has made its decision. is lindsey graham on sound legal ground, saying he should be tried in a civilian court, but held and questioned as an enemy combatant? >> i think the only fair answer to that question is we don't know. because it's never been done before in american history to have some sort of hybrid combatant and criminal proceeding. we do know from jake tapper's reporting, there was an interrogation of tsavraev. and he did disclose his position that there was no broader conspiracy here. just him and his pressure. it seems like the justice department and
/11. well, senator lindsey graham has been outspoken on how the younger suspect ought to be handled by authorities. here's senator graham. >> two things should happen. when the public safety exception expires, and it will here soon, this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant, and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence-gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist. >> mike: there's a part of me that really wants to agree with the senator. he's my friend, and i like him a lot, but if he's asking us to ar understanding of the due process of law that has established us as a unique light among the darkness in this world, then i have to think through that very carefully. yes, i want to be able to question these guys. no, i don't want them to get all lawyered-up. but at the same time we're a country of laws. i do want our country to acknowledge terrorism when it's obvious terrorism. for example, i want us to say, fort hood, that was terrorism. little rock, the shooting of the soldier outside the
to change. >> lindsey graham is doing a whole bunch of talk radio this morning. it's clear to me, we know why they probably booked all these interviews. because they're worried that this is where the immigration issue could percolate where all of the sudden the connection to boston happens. >> i think it also shows that compared to the last time around in '06 and '07 the republicans who were for this type of legislation are a lot more active in trying to engage with the conservative critics. >> dan, that does seem to be a huge difference before, they would lament maybe to you in interviews. but they wouldn't actively try to fix this. >> yeah. you know, they're pushing forward in a way they weren't before. they're much more confident about the reasons why they're doing this. and they're -- they feel much less defensive about it when they're being criticized by their own people. >> at the press conference amongst the most eloquent were marco rubio. the marco rubio. >> you were there. richard. this was the most fascinating -- >> it's a definition of kumbaya. >> it got those many votes. stick
on and is he prosecuted as an enemy combatant as senator mccain and lindsey graham and others -- >> martha: do you expect this administration to do that? >> no, because they've stated they will not hold american citizens indefinitely, even though -- >> martha: that's established under the supreme court -- >> the defense authorization act of 2012, they can. there have been statements by the president that they wouldn't enforce it. but if they wanted to enforce it, they could at this point. this will become a subject of debate. what's best for america? hold them forever or try them? let's see what happens. >> martha: as always, great to have you. >> good to see you. >> martha: bill? >> bill: martha, there is still -- they're still collecting evidence on boylston street. we saw the haz-mat suits on a short time ago. that process still continues. boston shows its resilience. the residence come out cheering the efforts of police and the investigation. as that continues, too, the applause from last night will be memorable in this city's long and historic tradition. [ cheers and applause ] >> usa! us
senators includes lindsey graham called for. senator graham challenged them saying the decision they made premature. let's listen. >> here's my concern. as a lawyer for over 30 years, civilian and military, i strongly support the concept that no criminal defendant should ever be required to incriminate themselves while they're in custody of the government. every nation at war should have the ability to defend themselves by gathering intelligence. these are not mutually exclusive concepts. i believe our nation is at war. the enemy is radical islam defined as the taliban, al qaeda, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named, to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston? >> let's drill down on the legal status of the boston bombing suspect. kendall coffey. the great jonathan turley, here in washington. thank you for this. can they decide later if a piece of evidence shows up a week from now, that shows a connection, e-mail, whatever, connection with al qaeda,
advocates, republicans, are saying such as lindsey graham are -- we understand, they say, we understand he's going to be tried in civilian court but start the questioning -- treat him as an enemy combatant under the law of war. question him by intelligence people. get all the intel you can. then turn him over to the civ civilian authorities. that's what they advocate. that's not going to happen, the administration has decided. he'll be questioned first by this special group set up in the last couple of years in terror cases called the high value detainee interrogation group, fbi cia, dod. they don't have a long time to do that, probably no more than a day or so. then he'll be begin his miranda warning and we'll see if he continues to talk. in other terrorism cases, surprisingly, these people do keep talking. >> mike rogers, chairman, do you have a view how he should be treated in the criminal justice system? >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of those protections of the u.s. constitution under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has
an extended trip to russia last year. today on cnn's "state of the union" senator lindsey graham said there were plenty of clues that tsarnaev had been radicalized. >> the ball was dropped in one of two ways. the fbi missed a lot of things, is one potential answer. or our laws do not allow the fbi to follow-up in a sound, solid way. there was a lot to be learned from this guy. he was on websites talking about killing americans. he went overseas, as chuck indicated. he was clearly talking about radical ideas. he was visiting radical areas. it's people like this that you don't want to let out of your sight. and this was a mistake. i don't know if our laws are insufficient or the fbi failed, but we're at war with radical islamists and we need to up our game. >> the chairman of the house homeland security committee is also weighing in on this topic. he told our candy crowley that tamerlan tsarnaev received what he called training while in russia and he thinks tsarnaev made more than one trip to the region. we are learning more about the suspects from the russian republic of dagestan where
countries -- cases in this country. today senator lindsey graham urged the white house to reconsider its decision. >> i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option if the effort warrants to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. the ability to have access to this suspect without a lawyer present together intelligence about a future attack is absolutely essential to our national security. >> democratic congressman adam shift, a member of the house intelligence committee is "outfront" and he is also a former federal prosecutor. we now that dzhokhar, suspect number two, has been read his miranda rights. sow won't be designated as an enemy combatant. but if he was labelled an enemy combatant, he wouldn't have been entitled to a lawyer and a jury trial. they could have asked him a lot of other questions without a lawyer present that may or may not be relevant to national security. now why did they make this decision not to go for enemy combatant status? do they think they have so much evidence in this case that they can go ahead with the civilian jury trial and the
an enemy combatant are those republicans, among them john mccain and lindsey graham. but there's others, they say basically he should be treated as an enemy combatant for now and then handed over to civilian authorities. the information we're learning about his inability to communicate right now throws a wrench into a lot of that. but on the other side, we heard today from the chairman of the intelligence committee of the house, mike rogers, and here is his perspective on why he should not be treated like an enemy combatant. >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of the protections of the u.s. constitution. under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has a period of time to try to determine what threats are there today. we don't know if there's other devices. we don't know if there's other people. i think mirandizing him up front would be a horrible idea. >> so there are really a series of questions there. first, should he be treated as a criminal -- excuse me, as a -- i want to make sure i get it right, as an enemy combatant. that ques
to achieve with lindsey graham and kelly, that is the most important thing. our priority should be not to punish these perpetrators, not to prosecute them, not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose should be that we have somebody in custody that may know of other terrorist plots and terrorist cells that has information that could save lives. can they get information from them? tell them that he has the right to remain silent and we are going to remain ignorant of the information that he has, even if that means that other people will be killed and a terrorist act in the future. it is a mistaken decision to say that we will remain ignorant. aside from all of the prosecution and issues. we are remaining ignorant right choice. >> officials say the boston bombing suspects are apparently motivated by religion. no terrorist group ties. -- brother's mastermind masterminded the attack. they worked independently. does that change your opinion? >> i have great respect for the media. i spent many years as a journalist. we get things wrong. how do we know? can you tell me who trained them?
, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status. we do not want the suspect to remain silent. we have concerns that limiting this investigation to 48 hours and exclusively relying on the public safety exception to miranda could very well be a national security mistake. is this realistic he would be named as an enemy combat talent, denying him rights even though's u.s. citizen, he was naturalized on september 11th of last year and he was arrested in the united states? >> no, this is a deep philosophical division between the obama administration and some of the republican -- sorry about this and what that means is the obama administration has said the criminal justice system can make this work, the criminal can handle national security risks like this person, terrorists have been prosecuted, moussaoui. this administration is committed to using the american courts there are some critics, like senator mccain, like senator graham, who say that's too big a risk, that we have too m
. lindsey graham has said there are two possible ways that the fbi dropped the ball on this. first, it could have been a systemic failure in the sense that the procedures were following up on these warnings were floored or secondly there was some individual floor related to this. >> briefly, because you have said that, look, despite the fact that this may now have russia sort of saying, look, we tried to warn the u.s., look at that relationship between russia and chechnya, just because the u.s. and russia have to communicate about this issue, that it could help relations between these two countries. >> that's something we can see going forward. u.s.-russian relations have been terrible the last few years. a travel ban and asset freeze on senior russian officials and the russians retaliated with a sisir ban on u.s. officials linked with guantanamo bay. >> and he's u.s. adoptions. >> u.s. adoptions, exactly. there's indications that relations could be warming and is we have the winter olympics next year in sochi. >> we'll need a lot of international cooperation on security, as well. >> exactly
on in this hearing right now between lindsey graham and janet napolitano. we will get into it more later. the gist of it is why didn't we know about tamerlan's trip to russia, given the fact that he had been -- he had been, you know, asked questions already by the fbi, and at one point janet napolitano in this hearing today suggested, well he pinged on the way out. we picked him up on the way out. mike levine sailed he was on a very large watch list not a terror watch list that doesn't have a whole lot of significance. the big thing here, bob is are we doing what we need to be doing in terms of keeping track of people who have been on the radar in this country, or are we throwing up our hands and saying we can't find anything on them so we are done with that. >> this is the third time the fbi has let people slip through their fingers. they interviewed the guy before he went to russia. then he went to russia in an area near chechnya and he was there for six months. at that point it would seem to me it would trigger something, somewhere along the line. martha: you would think. >> this guy has been a
senator lindsey graham, specifically from senator john mccain for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant. how is legal action at this point most likely to move forward? >> reporter: well, the obama administration would never go for that, partly as a policy matter. they have made it quite clear that civilian courts are up to the task and they think in many ways better than military tribunals which are untested. civilian courts have convicted lots of terrorism defendants. it will be a federal case. they'll charge him withes with use of a weapons of mass destruction. the maximum penalty is the death penalty. the government will have to decide whether to seek that or not. there's an additional wrinkle here. he is an american citizen. he was a naturalized citizen last year oddly on 9/11 of last year, and there is an open legal question about whether even if the government wanted to, it could declare an american citizen captured on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant. it's an untested question. the government tried to do it in the case of jose padilla several years ago and as that case w
got in terms of a note that was handed to me talking about a few senators, lindsey graham, john mccain, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king, all of whom have said this suspect based on his actions clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. we do not want this suspect to remain silent. talk about that in terms of what prosecutors are doing right now. is that the path down which prosecutors and any investigators are going right now? >> well, it's unclear whether or not they're going down that path to identify and designate him as an enemy combatant but they should at least go down the path to determine whether or not that is the designation they should make for this particular person. then they should do it based on our national security, national interest to determine whether or not identifying him as an enemy combatant will actually enhance our national security and national interest. >> what about the charges? what do you expect them to be against dzhokhar. >> well, if he's not designated as an enemy combat eant he wille charged federally. the first decision has to b
, or was this a conspiracy. that's where our focus is right now. >> i want to play for you what republican senator lindsey graham said after the white house announced earlier in the day that the survivining suspec the 19-year-old, would not be questioned as an enemy combat t combatant. listen to this. >> i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option, if the evidence warrants, to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. what do we know? we know that these two individuals embrace radical islamist thought, that there's ample evidence this was an attack inspired by radical ideology, they were not trying to rob a bank in boston. >> what do you think about that, congressman? >> well, fifrst thing, i respec the senator's point of view, but i disagree. number one, you have to look at the legal aspect of this. when that provision that you don't have to give miranda rights is used, that -- you have to show a connection to al qaeda. in this situation, we at this point have no connection to al qaeda whatsoever. so the other issue is, this is an american citizen. when you have an american ci
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)